2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From March 11, 2015 to June 19, 2018, Defendant B served as the president of the Plaintiff’s partnership; Defendant C was the auditor of the Plaintiff’s partnership; and Defendant D was the employee of the Plaintiff’s partnership.

B. At the time when Defendant B was in office as the head of the Plaintiff’s association, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase price of goods with the Gwangju District Court Branch 2017Kadan6854 against Party E, the case claiming for the purchase price of goods and provisional attachment with the Gwangju District Court Branch 2017Gadan7116, G farming association corporation’s claim for the purchase price of goods and provisional attachment with the Gwangju District Court Branch 2017Ma7116, H farming association corporation, H farming association corporation, I stock company, J and K with the Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “prior-related cases”), and the case claiming for the purchase price of goods and provisional attachment with the Gwangju District Court 2017Ma54983 (hereinafter “the Defendants of the preceding-related cases”) against the Defendants of the preceding-related cases.

C. After instituting the preceding cases, the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff in all of the lawsuit on the merits of the said case.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants in relation to the filing of the preceding related cases in 2019, such as attempted fraud, occupational breach of trust, etc. However, the prosecutor of the Mapopo District Prosecutors' Office in Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office rendered a non-prosecution decision on the ground that he/she was not guilty, and the plaintiff filed a complaint

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 48, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3, the result of the personal examination of defendant D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants, despite the fiduciary duty of a good manager who does not bring a civil lawsuit against a certain case with a false assertion, did not know of the unit price for each company’s trade in prior-related cases where the loss was certain due to its violation of the fiduciary duty.